Talk:Zero Hedge

Reversion of first sentence edit by Ratel

I have reverted an edit by Ratel that removed the existing consensus first sentence describing the site as a markets-focused blog (per Bloomberg, Washington Post, and Reuters), in favour of calling it a right-wing blog (from a Forbes reference). While the article (and lede) does make reference to the right-wing elements of the site's non-financial content (a distinctive aspect), the references do not label the site as exclusively right-wing in terms of its principal characteristic, which is financial. It is important with this "controversial" site that we keep to the best quality RS and to NPOV. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been reading the site for several years, and the articles range from right wing to rabidly right wing. Nothing, ever, is published there from the left side. In fact the site is rated as "extreme right wing" by Media Bias/Fact Check [1]. We should call a spade a spade here, not try to obfuscate reality. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also read this site for years, and agree with the best quality references on it - it is a mainly financial site (and has views all across the spectrum, some brilliant, some (deliberately - although I don’t have a ref to prove this) misleading, and some just bizarre), and its non-financial content does lean to alt right (per lede): and pro Russian (per lede), however, it is not principally a right wing site. We must go with the highest quality references. Britishfinance (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your "all across the spectrum" comment, can you provide any examples of left wing articles? I've plowed through all the pro-Trump, climate denying, anti-renewable energy, anti-Musk, conspiratorial stuff, and I can't find any. And if there aren't any, then site is first and foremost an ideologically-driven site, not primarily a financial site. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In WP terms, the site is what the highest quality references says it is. That is all we can follow. They do not label it a principally right-wing site, but a financial markets site (with content that leans to alt-right and pro-Russian). That is what the consensus version of the lede supports. Your - or mine - or personal views/investigations do not feature. Britishfinance (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But turning to your RSes, we see that Bloomberg calls it "libertarian financial website Zero Hedge".[2] Notice that Forbes and Bloomberg both preface the "financial" part with the right-wing/libertarian qualifier. Why don't we? Do you want me to find more examples? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another reference by Bloomberg to Zero Hedge being a "libertarian financial" site [3]
• "Far-right financial website" from NYT [4]
• "A right-wing blog called Zero Hedge" from Washington Post [5]
• "A right-leaning finance blog called Zero Hedge" Washington Post [6]

More where that came from. I don't see a RS problem with my edit at all. Unless you have a more cogent argument, will revert. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

In terms of your RS above:

• Bloomberg are not calling it "right-wing"? The existing ref, and your ref, both call it "libertarian financial website", which is different from a "right-wing website".[7] [8]
• The NYT reference is not a NYT article but a link to a BuzzFeed article, who is not an unbiased source on the site (per the Twitter affair).
• The Washington Post article is not a WPO staff writer but an opinion piece by another biased source being Jared Holt from "Right Wing Watch". The WPO staff writers view on the site are in the current reference [9], and say "Zero Hedge launched in 2009, mostly featuring news and commentary about financial markets from a libertarian perspective. In recent years, the blog has amplified right-wing conspiracy theories on a range of topics".
• Your last WPO ref is the staff writers one just above, which also do call it "right-leaning", and is thus repeated in the second sentance regarding its non-financial commentary having "alt-right" views.

From the above, you can see that the highest-grade staff-written RS are careful about the labeling of the site as "right-wing" (and never as its principal attribute (unlike other sites), which is as a financial markets website). Other high-quality refs like Reuters [10], follow this approach, calling it a "financial market website".

This article used to be a mess of POV (and was locked for a period). It was worthless, and any reader even glancing it would move on as it was so obviously biased. I am trying to get it back from that, and have even had CBS News in February 2020 quote the article as a source (per the article Talk page tag), which is what we want.

I have thought about using the term "libertian financial markets website", per Bloomberg, however, I think the lede structure of two paragraphs - one on its financial markets aspect (its most dominant part), and a second on its non-financial content (where the alt-right, pro-Russian parts are discussed), is the best way. Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite a lot of hair splitting going on there — I have yet to see an RS redefined as referring to "staff writers" only, so that's news to me — all of which seems to be seeking to avoid calling a spade a spade. Predictably, you have not been able to answer my challenge to show where any left-leaning content occurs ... despite the dubious claim of "all across the spectrum". So the site is indisputably right-leaning, right-wing, libertarian, alt-right, call it what you will. That's common knowledge, not WP:OR. I strongly feel that the initial sentence should state that. Let's look for a compromise word. Will "conservative" do? 🙂 Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just FYI:

1. "of the right-wing news blog Zero Hedge" South China Morning Post [11]
2. "English-speaking alt-right media, such as The Daily Caller and Zero Hedge" Columbia Journalism Review [12]
3. "Zero Hedge, a right-wing blog known for making outlandish claims" San Diego Union Tribune [13]
4. "Zero Hedge, a popular economics- and finance-focused conservative blog" New York Magazine [14]
5. "Zero Hedge has a right-leaning, anti-establishment bent" Marketwatch [15]
6. "two conservative sites were also on the list, PJ Media and Zero Hedge" National Catholic Register [16]
7. "the conservative blog Zero Hedge" Vox [17]
8. "... right-leaning or libertarian sites such as ... Zero Hedge" Media Post [18]
9. "...right-leaning outlets. Breitbart, InfoWars, The Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, The Drudge Report, and Zero Hedge are prime examples." USA Herald [19]

Lots more where that came from, hopefully not required. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I hear you. Let me come back to you tomorrow on this as am busy in RL. Some of these refs are also not appropriate, but others might work. Want to make sure that any change is stable (given the bad history on this article). Also pinging David Gerard who also patrols this article. Thanks for your patience. Britishfinance (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

yeah, it's nonsensical to claim Zero Hedge isn't right to far-right - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

sorry I hit rollback there, I meant to do an ordinary revert with edit comment "clearly, per talk" - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Redux

David Gerard, I agree with Smyth that we did not get to far-right (I think an IP put in this in), and that is not what the best quality sources above call it (at best, it is right-wing or right-leaning). Also, the Forbes ref is a contributor (e.g. no oversight), so have taken out (we have lots of high-quality refs from Reuters, Bloomberg and WPO anyway). I can live with putting right-leaning in the first sentence (my preference was to deal with this in the second sentence, however, am happy to be influenced by yourself and the others on this), but not far-right. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be you personally not liking "far-right" there, but you can see above the extensive list of top-tier sources (e.g. NYT) saying literally those words - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This article used to be junk as it was full of extreme labels in both directions. I think it is in much better shape now. Every criticism and issue regarding the site that has been chronicled in proper WP:RS is in this article, and it is even getting quoted by CBS as a reference. There is a case for calling it right-wing per above, however, there are very few good RS that use the term far-right, and a lot of very good RS that don't even use the term at all. Zero Hedge is not Proud Boys (which is unambiguously far-right). Zero Hedge is covered by some of the highest grade RS in finance, and they are very careful about how the label it. And so should we, otherwise, nobody will read it, and it will just revert back to being junk. Britishfinance (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely not addressing what is being discussed and extensively documented in this section. There's plenty of cites to it being "far right", your personal feelings about the site aside - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion of the RS above, and particularly the best grade RS. It has nothing to do with my "personal feelings". Your own contribution was to state that is was "nonsensical" (without any consideration of the main RS on this topic), which could also be interpreted as a personal view? I personally don't feel that the "right-wing" term should be in the first sentence (per my discussion above), however, I have been persuaded from the above to concede. I think you are being harsh on me? Britishfinance (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this, apart from competing RSes, is to look at what would be the most accurate term. Take a look at far-right politics, one of our better articles. In it, we see that "alt-right" and "reactionary" views are hallmarks of the far-right. ZH definitely has reactionary editorial views (do I need to expand on this, given the data already in our article?). But there are some features of the far right that are missing (homophobia, racism [arguable] inter alia). Looking at the article centre-right politics, we can see that ZH is clearly more right than what's described there. So NOT centre-right. Now ZH is a virulent supporter of Trump, a right-wing populist, and I find the article right-wing populism perhaps the closest match to the site's zeitgeist. Echoing Trump ("beautiful, clean coal"), many of the articles are anti-Musk, anti-renewable energy and pro-fossil fuels. This reminds us that the Koch brothers, founders of the Tea Party Movement (mentioned in the far-right politics article), are also ardently anti-renewables because of their extensive fossil fuel interests. So ZH is allied to the Tea Party Movement, which is far-right by WPs' own definition.

So personally I am happy with any of these descriptors in the first sentence: far-right, alt-right, right-wing, right-leaning, right-wing populist, conservative. Far-right would not be incorrect, and we have the RS if we decide that's the most accurate. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to argue that you are all being blinded by your own collective bias... but in this echo chamber a leftist bias is easily mistaken for consensus.. perhaps you could consult a third party who isn't rabidly anti-right about whether your clearly subjective description (which you are biased sources as citation for) is accurate or not. I say it should be reverted to what had been there for weeks previous to the change. this coming from me, somone who hates Trump (idiot/malevloent) but considers himself reasonably objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.210.215 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Low content quality

So, the very first thing this article says about this site is "far-right" ("far-right financial blog" is an interesting concept -- are there any "far-right culinary blogs" yet?) The links indeed successfuly demonstate that such well-respectable, honourable, and no doubt impartial academic institutions as CNBC, BuzzFeed, Google Ads, NYT, etc, have actaully identified this site as "far-right" and conspiracy-theorist. OK, who am I to argue? However, both the links and the article itself fail to demonstate HOW EXACTLY this site is far-right. The article would benefit GREATLY if it mentioned what exactly this site systematically said was racist, ultra-nationalist, etc, and what kind of conspiracies it believes in. Any plans on adding that? BaruchVasserman (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us to "demonstrate" or prove anything. We reflect what reliable sources are saying, is all. And those sources say the site is far-right. Wikipedia is not a platform to argue for or against. Maybe you should try Reddit? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The only thing I'm willing to argue about here is the quality of this article, and I'm saying that it is could be grealy improved by explaining *how exactly* the thing is "far-right". Having read the article, I just wasn't able to understand what exactly it promotes related to "neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist [sic], or reactionary views". Do the "reliable sources" actually bother to explain that, so that it can be summarized here, a bit more substantially than "conspiracy theories on a range of topics"? BaruchVasserman (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Any claims would need to be directly supported by sources, per the verifiability and the no original research. For example, if a reliable source states that Zero Hedge is far-right, and then later describes some of the material that Zero Hedge publishes, but does not explicitly label that material as far-right, we are generally unable to link that material with the far-right descriptor in this article. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about: although every statement in the article is, technically, well-sourced, the resulting article makes little sense, and is of low use for the reader in this respect. I'm wondering how that is possible. When a journalist mentions in passing that some site is far-right (far-left, centrist, liberal, conservative, etc) while talking about something else, can that be a reliable source for a strong statement in an encyclopedic article? While, the fact that some journalists find the site e.g. "far-right" is no doubt worth mentioning, I would think, it at least needs to be some analysis from a reliable source trying to make the point explicitly -- and, automatically, there would be no shortage of examples for the Wikipedia article in this case. To be fair, the links given can only back the statement that it is "considered far-right by some journalists" than acutally "far-right". BaruchVasserman (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is ZH right or far right? The far right features are many. Just off the top off my head:

1. conspiracy theories Y (constant feature)
2. racism Y (just look at what they allow in the comments, as well as the many anti-BLM articles)
3. anti-communist / anti-socialist Y (many articles attack anything to do with "socialism")
4. neo-fascist Y (the heavily pro-Russian bias is supportive of Putin's fascist regime )

There's more but that's a start. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly a Reddit-level conversation. You may want to start with modifying the Far-right article with your original definition. You may also want to add "far-right" to the articles about Russia Today and every other Russian news media, since they all are governemt controlled and therefore "pro-Russian", and to the article about Putin himself (good luck with that, srsly!). Let's see where that gets you and if you can make those statements with reliable sources. Then I think it will be a good time to expand this article with the points you've just mentioned.

But these points are still better than nothing for the article, yes (if you have good sources).BaruchVasserman (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Manifesto and views / Financial views / Conspiracies

The text states: "Zero Hedge maintains a number of financial views/theories which are considered conspiratorial, and/or hard-to-prove or unprovable" [...] "iv. Chinese fraud. The belief that Chinese economic data is made-up, and that many Chinese companies are fraudulent (called "fraudcaps" by the site)"

How is this a conspiracy theory? Even Wikipedia articles document the many frauds. Recently - Luckin Coffee.

The fraud is well docutmented- Case study on accounting fraud of U.S.-listed Chinese companies https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/90232 U.S. Moves to Audit Chinese Firms. Market Frets Over What Comes Next. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-moves-to-audit-chinese-firms-market-frets-over-what-comes-next-11590485401. Chinese Growth Becomes a Tougher Sell on Wall Street. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-growth-becomes-a-tougher-sell-on-wall-street-11586426382. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "libertarian or right-wing", again

First sentence states that "Zero Hedge or ZeroHedge[b] is a libertarian or right-wing financial blog" as if it was a factual statement backed by some credible reference. In fact, all three references which supposedly back up this claim only use the terms as is with no further expansion on the subject and are not even about that primarily, they are on the subject of twitter ban. A proper reference that would merit such a sentence would be an article explaining what libertarian and right-wing ideas are and give example articles from ZeroHedge to establish the connection. No such reference is given right now. At best, the sentence should be reworded to something like "Zero Hedge or ZeroHedge[b] viewed by some as libertarian or right-wing financial blog". Better, it should be removed completely as it has no credible reference.

Further scrutinizing the references:

1. Reuters article does not mention the words libertarian or right-* anywhere in the article at all. So it is not a real reference.

2. Wapo article uses the term "right-leaning" and not "right-wing". The term used in the sentence is therefore not even correctly referenced and is made up.

Based on all of the above, I am proposing removal of the terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42anonymous (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed already and there are lots of references for the use of the descriptors. See above↑. And there are more sources, e.g. [20], [21], and etc. And really, these unbiased, reliable sources are only reporting on what's plain to see there every day. I popped over there right now and the very first article I saw, authored by ZH staff, contains the phrase "woke leftist mob" [22], the next one I opened stated that concepts like "privilege" and "systemic racism" are "dubious" (a typical far right position) [23], the next one voices the Trumpian theme of "boosting your immune system and laugh at COVID-19" and "avoid the main stream media like the plague!" and "We Don't Need No Stinking Vaccine For COVID-19" etc. Almost every single article attacks any form of social welfare, Antifa, and Democrats. The theme is overwhelmingly far Right. So that's why the sources call ZH for what it is. How many sources can you find that call it Left-leaning? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

​After surveying the available sources, I believe the term far-right should be used in the first sentence, which is in line with the InfoWars article. Many reliable sources describe Zero Hedge as far-right:

1. "Google and Facebook Are Cracking Down on the Far Right", Vanity Fair (RSP entry)
2. "Who 'Created' Covid?", Outlook
3. "Republicans push back on Google restrictions", Fox News (RSP entry)
4. "Anti-Vax Doctor Promotes Conspiracy Theory That Death Certificates Falsely Cite COVID-19", Rolling Stone (RSP entry)
5. "Scientists Haven’t Found Proof The Coronavirus Escaped From A Lab In Wuhan. Trump Supporters Are Spreading The Rumor Anyway.", BuzzFeed News (RSP entry)
6. "How social media platforms are fighting coronavirus misinformation", CBC.ca
7. "No, Californians, you won't be fined $1,000 if you shower and do laundry the same day", The Sacramento Bee

Far-right is a subset of right-wing. Some sources also describe Zero Hedge as alt-right, a subset of far-right. Libertarianism is orthogonal to the left–right political spectrum, so the term libertarian can be used in conjunction with one of these other terms. Based on the sources, I would use far-right libertarian as the descriptors in the first sentence. (The word or is unnecessary.) — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. 2601:1c0:5d03:b5f0:55b5:3288:7015:52c added the far-right descriptor with another reliable source, and I added the sources listed above to support the descriptor. I've also moved libertarian to the first sentence. — Newslinger talk 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for the reason why they all called this site right-wing? What is the concrete right purpose of zeroHedge? Not anyone of the article is explaining why they mark this site as right-wing. Since I am not an american, may if you critise the finance system means your are far right? Or did they spread other theories which could be named as far-right? May someone could this explaniation add to the article? --Struppi (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the cited sources, Zero Hedge is considered far-right not because of its financial commentary, but because of its political commentary. For example, Zero Hedge has published far-right conspiracy theories about Black Lives Matter (see CNBC and Vanity Fair) and COVID-19 (see Outlook, Rolling Stone, BuzzFeed News, and CBC.ca). I agree that Zero Hedge § Non-financial views should be expanded with information from these cited sources. — Newslinger talk 09:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Both articles talk about the "comment section". The only concrete opinion is that Zero Hedge say "claiming that [BLM] protests were fake". That sound not as an political far right statement. And Covid-19 has nothing todo with a political wing per definition. So it seems the label "right wing" is just, because they have some positions which could also be shared by really right wing groups. Since I had some negative experience with right wing groups, I am a bit suprise which opinions and groups are labeled as right wing these days. Struppi (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Demonitazation

Would it be okay to use the RS CNBC's original research if it was used to demonitize Zerohedge? I want to expand on the "controversy" section. But the RS is the controversy? Jdabs (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What? For a reliable source to be controversy, there would have to be another reliable source "controverting" it. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Get specific with proposed changes and link to reliable sources, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)